THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen,
first I want to speak with you about a situation that all of us have
followed very closely in the last week, and that is the United
Nations' action in Somalia.

General Powell reported to me this afternoon that this
operation is over and that it was a success. The United Nations,
acting with the United States and other nations, has crippled the
forces in Mogadishu of warlord Aideed, and remains on guard against
further provocation. Aideed's forces were responsible for the worst
attack on U.N. peacekeepers in three decades. We could not let it go
unpunished.

Our objectives were clear: The U.N. sought to preserve
the credibility of peacekeeping in Somalia and around the world, to
get the food moving again, and to restore security. I want to
congratulate the American and the United Nations' forces who took
part in this operation. In this battle, heroism knew no flag. And
in this era, our nation must and will continue to exert global
leadership as we have done this week in Somalia.

Here at home, America is on the move. These past few
days have been an impressive and important series of victories for
the American people. Congress has taken major steps to limit the
influence of special interest and their money in our lawmaking and in
our campaigns. Congressional committees have also approved my plan
for more college loans for the American people and to enable tens of
thousands of them to pay their loans off by community service through
their states and nation.

But the most important thing I want to discuss is the
progress that is being made, the remarkable progress, on the economic
plan. Last month the House of Representatives passed the plan to
reduce the deficit, the first step toward creating jobs and
increasing incomes. Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee cleared
the way for action by the full Senate.

Make no mistake about it, this means that we are putting
our economic house in order. Getting the economy back on track
depends upon Congress passing this economic plan. It's necessary;
it's fair; and it will work.

I propose, indeed, I have insisted upon $500 billion in
deficit reduction to be locked away in a deficit reduction trust
fund. We will be making historic cuts in the deficit by making
historic cuts first in government spending, then by making highincome
Americans pay their fair share so middle-class Americans will
be treated fairly in the tax burden, for a change.

Seventy-five percent of the new taxes proposed fall on
the top six percent of the American people -- those with incomes
above $100,000. Now, some of the critics of this plan in Congress
prefer instead to cut Social Security or health care or tax benefits
for elderly people just above the poverty line, or working people
just above the poverty line so that the wealthy won't pay so much.
I'm here tonight to say to you and to the American people that I will
draw the line here. We have to reduce the deficit by reducing the
unfairness of the tax patterns of the 1980s and, once again, asking
all Americans to do what is right and fair. We can't simply balance
the budget on the backs of the old, the sick, the veterans and those
who work hard, but are just barely making ends meet. It's not right.

Let's look at what's at stake here. First of all, this
chart shows that if we do nothing, the inherited deficit, what we
found when I came into office, will go up by 1998 to about $400
billion a year. If this deficit reduction plan is passed, we will
cut $500 billion out of the deficit. That's the difference in this
line and that.

As all of you know, and as you've pointed out in various
ways in the last few weeks, I just got here. And I may have a lot to
learn, but I didn't create the red line. What I'm trying to do is to
change the red line and bring the yellow line in. And let me say, to
get the yellow line down here, we have to bring about an affordable
health care plan for every American. And that's the next big step.

But look what this deficit reduction plan alone will do.
I want to emphasize once again, because there's been so much talk
about taxes, that this is the most progressive tax plan this country
has seen in decades. Two-thirds of the money will be paid by people
with incomes above $200,000. Seventy percent of the economic gains
of the last decade went to the top one percent of the American
people. They are in a position now to pay more to help make this
economy move again, and they will.

This is the monthly payment, if my full economic plan is
passed, by people with incomes above $200,000. And you can see what
happens here to the plan with an actual modest break for people at
the bottom end of the income scale. This is a very progressive and
fair plan.

Now, finally, let me say there's been a lot of talk
about spending cuts here. If you look at this plan, for every $10 in
deficit reduction, $5, half of it, comes in spending cuts; $3.75 of
the $10 comes in tax increases on the highest income Americans, the
upper six percent; and $1.25 comes in taxes from the middle class,
people with incomes below $100,000 but roughly above $30,000.
Families with incomes below $30,000 are held harmless in this
program.

Now, that's the way this program works. Five dollars in
spending cuts, $3.75 in taxes from the wealthiest Americans, $1.25 in
taxes from the middle class. It's fair and it's balanced. And I
hope that the Congress will adopt it.

Let me say that as I open the floor to questions, the
real issue here is whether we will reverse the pattern of the last 12
years where Presidents send budgets to Congress that are never
seriously considered and everybody is afraid to talk about taxes
because they're afraid, no matter what happens, that will dominate
the agenda, nobody will know about spending cuts, nobody will know
about deficit reduction, nobody will know about fairness. I've tried
to tell the truth to the American people. And if this plan passes,
you will see a continuation of what's happened already in the last
five months. Low interest rates, increased housing sales, more jobs
coming into the economy.

In the four first months of this economy alone we had a
bigger growth in construction employment, 130,000 people, than we
have had in nine years. Why? Because we're serious about bringing
the deficit down. That's what this last week means. It means
continued victory for the American people if we can stay on this
road.

Q Since Vance-Owen is dead, will the United States
approve of a partition of Bosnia if the three factions meeting in
Geneva actually approve it? And also, isn't NATO really obsolescent
now? I mean, hasn't it outlived -- it can't stop the slaughter in
Europe, it won't be the policeman in Europe?

THE PRESIDENT: There's two separate questions. First
of all, as you know, my preference was for a multi-ethnic state in
Bosnia. But if the parties themselves, including the Bosnian
government, agree -- genuinely and honestly agree to a different
solution -- then the United States would have to look at it very
seriously.

Secondly, I do not agree that NATO is dead. NATO was
limited in what it could do in this instance because there was no
agreement among the NATO partners, first of all, and because any
organization of states was limited by the rules that the United
Nations imposed in the former Yugoslavia -- on the arms embargo, for
example.

The clearest example I know to give you that NATO is not
dead was provided by the leaders of all the Eastern European
countries that used to be communist that aren't anymore. When they
came here a few weeks ago for the Holocaust dedication, every one of
those Presidents said that their number one priority was to get into
NATO. They know it will provide a security umbrella for the people
who are members. And I think we need to continue to be involved in
it.

Q Who's the enemy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there will be different enemies.
The enemy will be anybody that threatens the security and the peace
of the member nations, the values that we hold important. There are
all kinds of possible problems in the years ahead, from terrorism,
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from yet
unforeseen developments in countries around NATO. So I don't think
it's time to dismantle NATO. I think it's very, very important.

Q Mr. President, doesn't this plan for carving up
Bosnia send a dangerous message to separatists around the world,
particularly in the former Soviet Union, that military aggression
pays?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that this plan shows that a
civil war which has roots going back centuries -- literally centuries
-- based on ethnic and religious differences has not been resolved in
the way that I certainly would have hoped. I think Serbian
aggression has been rewarded to the extent that the United Nations
resolution permitted the Serbs to send arms to the Bosnian Serbs and
permitted the Croats that were next door to Croatia to have access to
more weapons than the Bosnian government, predominantly Muslim, had.
And I think that was a mistake. But I don't think that anybody
should overlearn that lesson. Everyone who looks at this concedes
that this is perhaps our most difficult foreign policy problem.

Q Mr. President, getting back to your pie chart, you
said that a $1.25 from the tax increase will hurt the middle class.
During the campaign --

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it will hurt the middle
class. I think that it will help the middle class because it will be
a way of bringing the deficit down.

Q A dollar and a quarter out of that tax bite will
hit the middle class. In the PBS debate during the campaign, you
said the only thing Paul Tsongas has recommended that I haven't is a
three- to five-cent-a-year gas tax increase, and I'll be darned if I
understand why we should do that without giving some offsetting tax
relief. Then, in Putting People First, which was your campaign
manifesto, you said you opposed a federal excise gas tax -- I quote
-- "instead of a back-breaking federal gas tax, we should try
conservation."

Why are you now willing to go along with the Senate plan
to keep it moving through the Senate for a gasoline tax? Do you
think you can defeat it in conference, and if you do, will you try to
restore the Btu tax, as your Budget Director suggested today? And if
so, won't you then lose Senators Boren and Breaux and all the other
opponents when it gets back to the Senate? Isn't it a no-win
situation?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it is a win-win
situation if the Senate passes a budget that has $500 billion in
deficit reduction, locks the spending cuts away in a trust fund, and
asks the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share. I think
that's a win-win situation because I think we'll go to conference and
we'll get a plan that will meet those criteria and will also be
fairer to middle-class people and to the working poor. There's also
a lot of important provisions in there that I care about that will
help to encourage people to move from welfare to work.

The Senate bill is very different. It does have a 4.3
percent fuel tax in it. That is very different from $.03 a year
which is $.15 over five years; or $.05 cents a year, which is $.25
over five years. A 4.3 percent tax flat is not nearly as onerous as
that. I wish we didn't have to do that. But I would remind you that
after the election and before I took office the aggregate deficit
over the next five years was written up by $165 billion. I'm doing
the best I can to use very conservative, hard-headed revenue
estimates to get the deficit down, keep interest rates down, so that
people in the middle class can save more money than they'll pay if
they refinance a car loan or a home loan or take out a business loan
with lower interest rates.

And tonight, there will be millions of people who will
either watch us or hear about this tomorrow who have refinanced their
homes just since November -- with interest rates dropping, they'll
save more money in one year than they'll pay in five years under this
program. So I still think, on balance, it is the right thing to do.

Q You say this Somalia operation has been a success.
Does that mean that the United States and U.N. forces have captured
the Somalia warlord, General Mohamed Farah Aideed, and his associates
including Colonel Omar Jess? And if you haven't captured them, what
are you planning on doing with them if you do capture them? Are they
going to be put on war crimes tribunal or anything like that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, they have not been arrested. The
purpose of the operation was to undermine the capacity of Aideed to
wreak military havoc in Mogadishu. He murdered 23 U.N. peacekeepers.
And I would remind you that before the United States and the United
Nations showed up, he was responsible for the deaths of countless
Somalis -- from starvation, from disease, and from killing.

The back -- the military back of Aideed has been broken.
A warrant has been issued for his arrest. If he is, in fact,
arrested, then the United Nations will have to determine what
appropriate action to take. That is the decision the United States
is leaving to the United Nations, and one I believe we should.

Q Mr. President, the original deadline for the
unveiling of your --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, that's a great tie. I just
lost it for a moment there. (Laughter.) I wish the American people
could see this tie. (Laughter.) Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Q Some people believe that that's what the White
House press corps is all about, Mr. President, Mickey Mouse.
(Laughter.)

The original deadline for your -- the unveiling of your
health care reform plan has come and gone. When will the plan be
unveiled? What are the prospects for congressional passage this
year? And if you don't get it done this year, won't it be very
difficult to do so next year because of the congressional elections?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer the first question. The
task force has made its report to me. They have given me a number of
options from which I must choose before I can finalize a bill. The
White House is continuing to consult with people who know a lot about
this issue. My wife, as you know, went to speak to the American
Medical Association just a few days ago.

Is he trying to give me some water? (Laughter.) Let me
answer the question first. Thank you, John. He always wanted to be
on television. I hope his mother -- (laughter.)

The American -- my wife talked to the American Medical
Association recently. We are consulting regularly with both the
Democratic and Republican members of Congress. She also had a long
meeting with several Republican House members just a couple of days
ago.

We have determined that -- first -- and I, personally,
am getting quite close to making the final choices from among the
options there. I do not believe we can make any serious attempt to
go forward with this until the economic plan and the budget is in
place; then we will go forward with it.

I think because of all the consultation which has been
done and all the work that's been done, there's a real shot we can
act on it this year. I do not share the view that there's no chance
Congress will act next year, although I believe we can do it this
year, because I expect a lot of Republican as well as Democratic
support for this.

And I think that this issue affects the American people
so deeply -- there are millions of families out there who are
terrified they're going to lose their health insurance, who are
terrified they can't afford it, who are terrified because somebody's
been sick in their family, if they have to change jobs they'll be
without it; as well as all those who are working for a living without
health insurance; as well as all the businesses that are afraid
they're going to go for broke, that the impetus behind doing
something will be very great. I think it will be good, not bad, for
the American political system to act on this.

So I think whenever the debate really begins in
earnest, you will see the prospects of passage intensify, not
diminish.

Q If that does go over until next year, sir, will
that become the issue in congressional elections?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that and the condition of the
economy will be the big issues. And whether we are actually facing
up to our responsibilities in this new global economy. But that
wouldn't be the worse thing in the world, except I hope and believe
that the plan will pass before all that political season starts.

Q Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton recently said that she
hopes to tackle welfare reform as her next priority. Will she head
the administration's welfare reform effort? And do you expect to get
that done this year, too, or is that something that will have to wait
until 1994?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that, again, is a subject that I
expect we'll have broad bipartisan support on. And I would expect
that all of us will be involved in it. My wife is very interested in
this because it affects children.

But let me say that the first big block of the welfare
reform package is now being considered by Congress, and that is the
earned income tax credit. Most Americans don't know what that is,
but basically it is a change in the tax code that will permit us to
say to working families if you work 40 hours a week and have a child
in your house, you can be lifted out of poverty. That will remove
all the financial incentive to prefer welfare to work if we can then
pass in the health care reform health coverage for all children, like
every other country does, so we remove that incentive.

But we expect to have a welfare reform package that will
literally end welfare as we know it -- that will put a time limit on
welfare and, after that, people who have been through the education
and training programs will have to work. And I, again, would like
that if it could be done this year. That will depend on how warmly
embraced it is by Congress.

Let me just make one other point. The national service
bill, which will provide more college loans and the opportunity to
work them off with service, is moving through Congress more quickly
than most people thought because we were able to get good bipartisan
support and work out a lot of the details. If we can do that on
welfare reform, I think we can do it this year.

Q Mr. President, going back to the budget for a
moment, if you manage to get the budget passed, as it seems to be
heading, you will have achieved two major objectives: deficit
reduction and getting the wealthy to pay a larger share of the cost
of government. But there was a third major objective that you talked
about in the campaign and early on in your administration as crucial
for the health of the economy, which was your investment package,
your new spending that you proposed, which does not seem to be faring
well in Congress at all. So you seem to be in a position where
you've managed to overturn Reaganomics, but not enact Clintonomics.

So let me ask you two things about that. One is why?
What's your analysis of why your spending programs have not been
successful? And, second, what do you propose to do about it?

THE PRESIDENT: If you look at the budgets, if you look
at where we're going with the budgets, we had to cut back all
spending in the first two years of this five-year budget period to
deal with the fact that the deficit was higher than we thought it
would be. And I had to do that as well. But this is a five-year
budget for long-term growth of the American economy.

Over the long run, we do have to increase investment.
Let me also say that just because we are freezing all domestic
discretionary spending for five years doesn't mean there aren't
changes within those categories. We're cutting a lot of stuff so
that we can increase investment in things like Head Start for
children and job training for workers and new technologies to help
convert from a defense to a domestic economy. A lot of that new
investment is in there.

Secondly, I expect this bill to treat the other part of
my investment budget, that is, the private sector part, quite well.
I think there will be an increase in the expensing allowance for
small business, which will really help small businesspeople to hire
more workers. I think there will be an empowerment zone proposal in
the final bill which will finally test whether free enterprise can to
into depressed cities and rural areas and put people to work and
invest and start businesses. I believe it can.

I think those are the kinds of things that you will see
there. I think the earned income tax credit again will pass so that
we can lift the working poor out of poverty. So I expect a big
portion of the investment program to pass and I'll be surprised if it
doesn't.

Q Mr. President, I'm surprised that for the first
four months you came into office you were saying how bad the economy
was and how important it was for your program to be enacted to grow
the economy. Now, we hear you in the last week or so talking up the
economy, saying how well things are going, and yet, your program
hasn't passed. What are we to make of this? Why have you changed
your mind about the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think the economy is
still bad for most Americans. But the trends are good and the trends
are plainly tied to the determination of this administration to bring
the deficit down. We began to see a substantial drop in long-term
interest rates after the election when Secretary of the Treasury
Bentsen announced that we were going to have a serious deficit
reduction plan that would include entitlement cuts, other budget
cuts, tax increases on the wealthy, and an energy tax. We saw that.
And every student of this, starting with the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, who's testified before Congress to this effect, has said
that if we continue and pass this, we will get interest rates down.
So those things have been coming down.

That's why the Home Builders Association of America --
not a Democratic group, presumably largely a Republican group -- came
from all over the country to Maryland a few days ago to endorse the
economic program, because it is already beginning to bring interest
rates down

So are most people affected by the economic recovery?
No. But is it a good thing that you have 755,000 private sector jobs
in the first five months; that you have 130,000 jobs in the
construction industry, the biggest gain in a four-month period in
nine years? Yes it is. So the point I'm trying to make is we're
taking the right direction, but we've still got a lot of changes to
make.

Q Mr. President, you said a few minutes ago that
you've broken the back of the Somali warlords in Somalia. However,
Mohamed Aideed is still at large. This brings to mind the same
problem that happened with the previous administration with Saddam
Hussein. How can you assure the American people that you're not
going to get sucked into an ever-growing vortex of war in Somalia?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a big difference there.
Aideed is not in control of the government of Somalia. The United
Nations force is there, they're still promoting peace. They're now
going to be able to deliver food, medicine, do their work and try to
help engage in the long-term process of nation building. And we
never, ever, the United Nations and the United States never listed
getting rid of Aideed as one of our objectives. In fact, as long as
he was willing to cooperate with the United Nations, he was able to
live and work in peace right there in Mogadishu.

So what happens from now on in will be a function of,
number one, what the United Nations thinks is appropriate for his
conduct to date, and, number two, what he does in the future.

Q Mr. President, I have an easy problem for you, and
it's domestic, too.

THE PRESIDENT: There are none. (Laughter.)

Q This one's very easy. A lot of Americans are not
wildly pronuclear and thought the U.S. may have overreacted in past
years in its very heavy-handed treatment of New Zealand. Would you
consider meeting now with a New Zealand leader and discussing the
situation? Isn't there some way that a compromise can be reached so
you can agree to disagree, but still restore the political and
security relationship?

THE PRESIDENT: I've given absolutely no thought to that
question. (Laughter.) And I'm afraid if I give an answer to it,
I'll be in more trouble tomorrow than I can figure out. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, as you point out, your economic plan
would reduce the budget deficit by $500 billion over five years,
which is a significant improvement over what we've seen in the past.
But your critics would point out that the budget deficit would
continue to mount by hundreds of billions of dollars a year; and that
your attack on the deficit is limited to lowering projected spending
increases, rather than taking the much harder tack of making real
cutbacks in the budget. Can't you do more to deal with the problem
of this deficit and runaway spending?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me have the chart again. The answer
to that question -- first of all, let me answer it. You asked two
questions, not one. It is absolutely true that if this whole thing
is adopted or any other deficit reduction plan that has been
presented to date is adopted, by the fifth year the deficit starts to
inch up again and you don't get down to zero.

Now, that is true, but why is that? That is because
primarily of the projected exploding costs in medical care through
Medicare and Medicaid. And because we have programs like Social
Security and other retirement programs where people are given cost of
living increases year-in and year-out, something that most Americans
support. But the prime culprit here is Social Security -- I mean, is
medical costs, not Social Security. The prime culprit is medical
costs. They've been going up way faster than inflation.

Now, I want to make two points. Why do we reduce the
deficit only $500 billion over five years, even though that's a huge
amount? Because it was the considered judgment of the economic team
-- Secretary Bentsen, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Rubin -- that in a recession
there was a limit to how fast you could contract the deficit, and
that this would be a very rapid reduction of the deficit in a time
where there's very slow economic growth around the globe. We think
it will actually lead to some expansion of the economic activity.
Why? Because there's so much debt built into our system at high
interest rates that if people just go refinance all their homes and
their business loans, it will give them a lot of cash in their pocket
and that will stimulate the economy to grow.

Secondly, it is our considered judgment that we cannot
get the deficit down to zero, which is where it ought to be, until we
do something about health care costs, which is why the next big piece
of this administration's work is to provide a comprehensive health
care plan that will bring health costs in line with inflation.

If you do that, then this yellow line here, instead of
going up, will keep going down. And since there is no historic
precedent in America, let me ask you to go back and look what
happened in Japan in the mid-'70s to mid-'80s. They had about the
same size deficit we do in the mid-'70s. They decided they were
going to wipe it out. They took 10 years to wipe it out, not five.
But they did it. And today, in spite of all their economic problems,
they are the only major nation in a surplus position.

We can do it, too, if we do this, then tackle the
deficit. And let me remind you of one other thing, in September, the
Vice President's task force will make it's report on reinventing
government and reorganizing the whole way the government operates.
That will give us another whole shot to deal with this issue.

Q Mr. President, John F. Kennedy once said that the
coverage he'd been getting as President, that he'd been reading it
more and enjoying it less. And many other Presidents have expressed
similar sentiments. Lately, sir, there have been some indications,
at least, that you may be experiencing those feelings as well. Can
you give us your analysis of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I could say it any better
than President Kennedy did. (Laughter.) But let me say this: You
have to do your job as you see it. And I'm going to do mine the best
I can. Everybody in America knows, as I said, that I did not live
and work in this city until I became President. I knew when I came
here that there would be things that I would need to learn about the
processes and the way things worked. I believe then and I believe
now that if I do the big things right and deal with the big issues,
that eventually the other things will also work themselves out.

In the meantime, I think the most important thing that
we attempt, you and I, to create an atmosphere of trust and respect,
and that you at least know that I'm going to do my best to be honest
with you. And I think you're going to be honest with me, and I
expect you to criticize me when you think I'm wrong. The only thing
I ever ask is, if I have a response and I have a side, let that get
out and we'll watch this conflict unfold. I mean, this is nothing
new. President Jefferson got a rough press, too.

Q Sir, on Haiti, the Security Council of the U.N. has
stated that they're giving Haiti until the 23rd of this month before
they put real tough petroleum and economic sanctions. Do you think
that will solve the problem, or will we see a multinational force in
Haiti as we do in Somalia?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, since you asked the
question about Haiti, the United States is pushing for the U.N.
resolution to strengthen the sanctions to include not simply a freeze
on assets and lifting visas, but also to include oil. I think it
will make a difference. And the members of Congress who are expert
in Haitian affairs and who talk to people in Haiti believe that it
will make a difference.

Secondly, I have always assumed that to really
facilitate the restoration of democracy in Haiti, there would have to
be some sort of multinational force there. But I would remind you
that, recently, when that was proposed with the support of the United
States, both sides rejected it. President Aristide rejected it and
the de facto government rejected it, which was a disappointment to
us. So we decided to go back to the drawing board, look for tougher
sanctions.

In the end, since both sides distrust each other to
treat each other civilly, even to keep from shooting each other,
there, in my judgment, will never be a resolution of that, as long as
the main players are who they are, unless we have a multinational
peacekeeping force.

Q Mr. President, what have you been told about the
plot to assassinate George Bush in Kuwait? How definitive is the
chain of evidence against Iraq and what do you plan to do about it?

THE PRESIDENT: I have not received the final report
from the FBI, and until I do I don't think I should say what I will
or won't do.

Q Mr. President, in Bosnia the Europeans did not want
to take action because the United States did not have troops on the
ground. In Somalia, although we turned over operations to U.N.
peacekeepers about a month ago and it was Pakistani soldiers who were
attacked, the forces that went into action were largely American;
most of the firepower was American. You were just talking about a
multinational peacekeeping force in Haiti. Is the United States now
being put in the role of enforcer for the United Nations? And what
principles or thoughts do you bring to the table when you consider
committing U.S. troops to enforce not something that may be strictly
a U.S. interest, but something that is the will of the international
community?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we have to ask ourselves, first
of all: What are the interests of the American people? Secondly:
What are the values and humanitarian concerns at stake? And,
thirdly: What is the price of doing what we might be asked to do?

I think -- let me just say on Bosnia, it's not so simple
as that. We didn't have an agreement -- ever -- about what troops
would do. I pledge to the American people in the campaign last year
-- and I reaffirmed repeatedly -- that I did not think we had any
business sending troops into combat in Bosnia. I also said if there
were a cease-fire and a genuine peace agreement and the United
Nations had to guarantee the peace agreement that the United States
would participate. I don't think we should minimize the importance
of leading the way, but also setting an example.

Let me tell you, a lot of other countries -- the
President of Namibia was here, a fairly small country. They sent
people to Somalia. There are people from all over the world who sent
people to Cambodia in very dangerous circumstances. The Pakistanis
are the people who were murdered in Somalia. So I think this is a
very good thing.

Yes, America can lead the way. But it is very moving to
me to see all these other countries -- Ireland sending people,
putting themselves on the line. Not just government employees, but
people working through other organizations to try to help solve these
problems. There is a remarkable confluence of people trying to
promote democracy and human rights and freedom and market economics.
And I think that if we can leave that an acceptable price, that is in
our narrow interest and it is certainly in our broader human
interest.

Q Mr. President, now that you've made your decision
about the Space Station, are you going to appoint a new NASA
administrator? And if you are, when?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any plans at this time to
do that. Let me just make a point about the Space Station, if I
might. As you know, I have always supported the Space Station; I
realize that some people don't. The United States indisputably leads
the world in space. It is an important area of science and
technology. I think it would be a mistake, after all the work we've
done, to scrap the Space Station.

There is a $4-billion budget cut in my budget for the
Space Station because we're going to redesign it and redesign the
management system of NASA. We've brought in all of these scientists
to look at it, to tell us exactly what ought to be done and exactly
how this thing ought to be run and we're going to have to make some
changes. But I want to tell the American people: We need to stay
first in science and technology, we need to stay first in space.
We're going to be able to get more people to come in and invest with
us, and we're going to have to make some very tough management
decisions at NASA to get that done.

Q Mr. President, many African American leaders have
expressed their anger or extreme disappointment with the way you
handled the Lani Guinier nomination and with the way you handled the
Haiti situation. In addition, the Congressional Black Caucus has
said it is very angry with the fact that they voted for your budget
package and cast some very politically difficult votes, only to have
you negotiate a watered-down package in the Senate. How would you
assess your relationship right now with blacks? And what are you
doing to mend fences with the Congressional Black Caucus so that they
will not vote against the conference report on the budget package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I did not negotiate
that bill that the Senate passed. That is just inaccurate. I did
not do that. And I think you know what I liked about the House bill
and you know where I have been on the issues and you know what the
principles are I've enunciated.

I think Senator Moynihan did a remarkable job to get a
bill out that does have $500 billion in deficit reduction, more
spending cuts and tax increases and taxes falling primarily on upperincome
people. I think to that extent we ought to give him credit.
But there has been no negotiations.

Secondly, and quite to the contrary, when members of the
Black Caucus came to see me and asked me to pursue sanctions in the
United Nations against Haiti that included oil, I examined it and I
agreed to do it. They were the first people who asked me to do it.
And very shortly after the meeting I agreed to go forward. But they
know, the ones who follow the Haitian developments, that even before
that I offered to have the United States participate in a
multinational peacekeeping force to restore democracy and to restore
President Aristide and that he rejected that. They know that's a
fact.

Thirdly, I don't think my commitment to civil rights is
very much open to question. And I think my actions as President and
the appointments I've made, and the things I've stood for document
that. And I believe that over the long run the Black Caucus and the
Clinton administration will continue to be very close. And I've
talked to any number of them personally, recently.

Q On campaign finance reform, now that most of the
public financing provisions have been removed from the Senate bill,
how do you convince people that this is truly meaningful campaign
finance reform? And also, will you seek at some point in the future,
perhaps, to put that public financing back into another measure?

THE PRESIDENT: First, let's see what the House does.
Again, this is a bill you're going to have to watch come out of
conference. The House will probably adopt a somewhat different bill.

But let's talk about what the Senate bill does do. The
Senate bill reduces the influence of PACs and special interests; it
limits the cost of campaigns; it spends public funds, if necessary,
if one party violates the spending limits then the other party can
get public funds in the form of communications vouchers so that the
airwaves will be open to both parties and people can hear both sides.

So this is a vast advance over the present law in
breaking the back of special interest domination of politics and
elections. So I like it in that regard. Let's see what the House
does. I think we can get a good bill out and I hope both sides will
vote for it.

Q Mr. President, will you support the Senate's ten
percent increase in the capital gains tax?

THE PRESIDENT: They imposed a ten percent surcharge
because there's now a difference between the capital gains rate and
the income rate. And, as you know, the theory of the Tax Reform Act
of '86 was to level them. Let's see what comes out of the conference
report. What I want is a tax system where 75 percent of the burden
falls on the top six percent of the American people -- at least that
progressive. And if it is that progressive, then I'm open on the
details. But I want to see what the final bill is. That's the key
thing: Will the wealthy pay their fair share? Will it all be in a
trust fund to reduce the deficit? And will the ratio be at least as
good as the one I showed -- $5 of every $10 in spending cuts; $3.75
in tax increases on upper income people; $1.25 on the middle class.